LandmarkCases.org 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause Lesson Plan / The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause—Answer Key This lesson explores the evolution of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause through analysis of primary source excerpts from: − 14th Amendment − Congressional Debates on the 14th Amendment − The Civil Rights Cases (1883) − Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) − Brown v. Board of Education I (1954) − Loving v. Virginia (1967) − Reed v. Reed (1971) − Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) − Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) Lesson contents: 1. Handout 1: Timeline of Events and Cases, 1865–2015 2. Handout 2: Primary Sources Relating to the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause 3. Handout 3: Evolution of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Last updated: 06/30/2020 Handout 1 Timeline of Events and Cases, 1865–2015 1865 & After the Civil War, former confederate states passed laws that accepted African Americans as free citizens but denied them many rights, including the right to 1866 vote, serve on juries, own and lease land, and own weapons. These laws became known as the Black Codes. The purpose of the laws was to preserve as many remnants of slavery as possible. July In response to the Black Codes, Congress passed the 14th Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. The Amendment was ratified in July 1868 (former 1868 Confederate states were required to ratify the amendment as a condition of readmission to the United States). 1873 The Slaughter-House Cases were the first major cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment. The Court decided, in these cases, that the federal government could not protect all civil rights—only those rights traditionally associated with national citizenship, like free access to seaports. Fundamental civil rights, however, were the responsibility of the states, and each state could choose whether or not to protect those rights. 1875 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which forbade racial discrimination in public places and facilities such as hotels, public transportation, public parks, and juries. 1880 In Strauder v. West Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that forbade African Americans from serving on juries. The Court decided it would violate the Equal Protection Clause to deny Black people the right to a jury that included Black peers while allowing White people to have juries full of White peers. 1883 The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in a consolidation of five cases now referred to as the Civil Rights Cases. In their decision, the Court said that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because the federal government did not have authority under the 14th Amendment to prohibit discrimination by private individuals or businesses. 1886 In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city of San Francisco’s discriminatory treatment of Chinese business owners violated the Equal Protection Clause. Even though the law regulating business licenses did not mention race, the city applied it unequally and gave building permit waivers to White business owners but not to Chinese business owners. © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Page 1 of 3 1896 In Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Louisiana’s law requiring segregated rail cars for Black people and White people did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, so long as the facilities are equal. The decision created what became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine. 1938 In Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University of Missouri Law School violated the Equal Protection Clause when it denied an African American applicant solely on the grounds of race and there were no other law schools in Missouri accepting African American applicants. 1948 In Shelley v. Kraemer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that private neighborhood agreements that forbade homeowners from selling or renting property to non- White buyers could not be enforced. The Court believed that one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause was the equal right for all to buy, own, and sell property. 1950 In Sweatt v. Painter, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas’s separate law school for Black students violated the Equal Protection Clause because it had much fewer resources than the university’s law school for White students. 1954 In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson entirely by saying that separate public schools for White and Black students were “inherently unequal” and could, therefore, never be constitutional. The Court found that regardless of whether segregated schools had the same resources, separating students of color based on race seriously harmed their “hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.” 1955 After Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, many states that wanted to preserve segregation refused to integrate their public schools. This resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court taking the case of Brown v. Board of Education II one year later, when they declared that school desegregation shall be implemented “with all deliberate speed.” However, the Court did not order that desegregation start immediately or on a specific timeline. The Court also left many decisions for how to desegregate to local school authorities. States with massive resistance to integration were, therefore, able to postpone it for years. 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, and sex in both private employment and in public accommodations. Public accommodations included privately owned hotels, movie theaters, and restaurants. In H eart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, a hotel that refused to rent rooms to African American guests challenged the constitutionality of the law. However, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional under the Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate activity related to interstate commerce (trade). © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Page 2 of 3 1967 In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. 1971 In a unanimous decision in Reed v. Reed, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the Equal Protection Clause and ruled that state laws cannot give a preference to one sex over the other when choosing the person to manage the belongings of a deceased person. 1978 In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a White student who was not accepted to the University of California Davis School of Medicine argued that the school’s affirmative action program, which reserved 16 out of 100 total seats for students who indicated they were members of a “minority group,” violated the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, saying that it was unconstitutional for public schools to have a race quota. However, the Court also said that schools could still consider race as one of many factors in admissions. This was because having a diverse student body improves the quality of education and, therefore, represented an important government interest. 2015 In Obergefell v. Hodges the U.S. Supreme Court found that state same-sex marriage bans violated the Equal Protection Clause because they denied gays and lesbians the right to marry—a right that straight people had. The Court determined that marriage was a fundamental right that all people have regardless of their sexual orientation. In practice this decision made same-sex marriage legal in all states. © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Page 3 of 3 Handout 2 Primary Sources Relating to the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause Questions to consider as you analyze the primary sources below: − What was the purpose of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause when it was written and ratified? − How has the Equal Protection Clause been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in key cases? − How did that interpretation change over time? − What does the Equal Protection Clause mean today? − What role did the case you are studying play in the evolution of the meaning? Document Excerpts:* − Amendment XIV, Sections 1 and 5, ratified 1868 − Congressional Debates on the 14th Amendment − The Civil Rights Cases (1883) − Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) − Brown v. Board of Education I (1954) − Loving v. Virginia (1967) − Reed v. Reed (1971) − Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) − Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) * Note that in some cases the excerpted text from Supreme Court opinions uses dated race-related terms or conventions. These terms have been left intact in quoted material only. © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Page 1 of 13 14th Amendment, Sections 1 and 5, ratified 1868 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Questions to Consider 1. Underline and define any key words from Sections 1 and 5. Student answers will vary, but they might underline: • Jurisdiction – the legal power/authority over a person or topic • Abridge – limit • Privileges – legal rights or advantages • Immunities – legal protections • Due process – the proper legal steps required for a government’s taking of life, liberty, or property to be fair and just (for example, notice that the government might take away your property is usually required because you are have a right to defend yourself from the government’s decision in court) 2.